Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3107 (Ch) Case No: HC10C04611IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 29 November 2011 Before : THE HON MR JUSTICE ARNOLD ----- Between : VTB CAPITAL PLC Claimant - and - (1) NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP Defendants (2) MARSHALL CAPITAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (3) MARSHALL CAPITAL … In the BVI, following the refusal of the Supreme Court to permit the English Court to accept jurisdiction, the Claimant argued that as between the BVI and any competing jurisdiction (principally Russia), BVI was the more appropriate forum. The appellant, VTB Capital plc (“VTB”), is incorporated and registered, and authorised and regulated as a bank, in England. I would like to focus on the word ‘only’, it is ‘only’ when the company is being used as a tool to cover the wrong doings of another, however in the present case one cannot really see how RAP is being used by Nutriek as a cloak, nor has it been completely been proven by VTB that in fact there was a relation between the two companies, no link whatsoever can be seen in the company structure to prove the same. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek and others – WLR Daily. Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] WLR(D) 181, WLRD, [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 313, [2012] 2 CLC 431, [2012] 2 BCLC 437) The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. VTB plc (VTB) is a bank registered as a public company in England which is owned by a large Russian bank. VTB Capital PLC -v- Nutritek International Corp et al Claim No. # Ltd [1897] AC 22 # AIR 1986 SC 1370, Submit your Article by using our online form VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp is similar to these court cases: Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, Benedetti v Sawiris, Wallersteiner v Moir and more. Neutral citation number [2013] UKSC 5. The courts have upheld in judgments of Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. v. Stepanovs and Alliance Bank JSW v. Aquanta Corp. that there is no good reason of principle or jurisprudence why a victim cannot enforce an agreement between him and the puppet company who at all times is pulling the strings. editor@legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm. endstream endobj startxref Judgment details. It is majority-owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”), a state-owned bank based in Moscow. 06 Feb 2013. Hilary Term [2013] UKSC 5 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 808 JUDGMENT VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek The concept in its very basic sense means that a company is … endstream endobj 176 0 obj <> endobj 177 0 obj <>/ExtGState<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 178 0 obj <>stream The concept of forming of corporations by registration and restricted liability of stake holders of corporations dates back to mid nineteenth century. The Court of Appeal in VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp [2012] kept it drawn … ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Muzammil Hassan, 4th year student, B.A LLB (Hons), NALSAR University of Law. . VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp 2013 UKSC 5 - Case concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud. Justices. Clare Arthurs and Alex Fox reflect on the Supreme Court judgment in Nutritek The Supreme Court clearly declined to extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil may be pierced. Appeal from – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others CA 20-Jun-2012 The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. h�bbd``b`VY@��H����J�w+H"H�:����`�20�F�gT�` e 183 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[175 21]/Info 174 0 R/Length 58/Prev 258612/Root 176 0 R/Size 196/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream View Notes - VTB Capital plc v Nutritek from LAW 203 at London School of Economics. 6. 195 0 obj <>stream The statutory provisions of the Indian and the English law are also quite similar regarding the issue. The case of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and others will be mentioned for years to come, says Fried Frank partner Justin Michaelson Not many things are certain in litigation, but one prediction I can make with confidence is that we will be citing the case of VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International […] » VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp et al . In researcher’s view this is the right approach as there always should be scope for accommodation according to the circumstances of each and every particular case, because for maintaining the right balance between the public welfare at large and the corporate interests of businessmen, every case must be looked into separately. Posted February 7th, 2013 in appeals, banking, freezing injunctions, law reports, loans, misrepresentation, service out of jurisdiction, Supreme Court by sally. The Supreme Court's decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others, handed down on Wednesday 6 February, is important for a number of reasons.. Firstly, it reinforces the difficulty for a party seeking to pierce the corporate veil. VTB Capital v Nutritek and others concerns an alleged fraud perpetrated on VTB by a Mr Malofeev and alleged connected entities. Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Hardwicke. London partner Wayne McArdle and associate Gareth Jones are the authors of "Prest v Petrodel Resources and VTB Capital v Nutritek: a Robust Corporate Veil" [PDF] published in the September 2013 issue of Business Law International.. VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors is one of the highest profile commercial cases of the year. In researcher’s view it is a good decision as it does not satisfy the tests laid down by the courts in other judgments and there is no principle agent agreement. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has decided in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5 that contractual liabilities of a corporation cannot be attributed to its controller by means of "piercing the corporate veil". Case ID. It lent $225 million to Russagroprom LLC (RAP), incorporated in Russia, under a facility agreement governed by English law. VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”), a state-owned bank based in Moscow. VTB Capital vs. Nutritek International Corp. - BVI Commercial Court Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else. [1] www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm # Salomon v. A Salomon & Co. Ltd [1897] AC 22 # Corporate Personality & Piercing of the Corporate Veil, Madhavander Chauhan, available at jurisonline.in, last accessed 20th March, 2013. The fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the valuation report. VTB entered into a loan agreement with a Russian company, RAP, under which VTB lent $225 million to allow RAP to buy a number of Russian dairy companies from Nutritek. Yesterday, Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed began a three day hearing of the case of VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808, which involves the principle of “piercing the corporate veil”, and the increasingly common issue of the breadth of the jurisdiction of the English courts. The first, second and fourth respondents are, respectively, Nutritek International Corp (“Nutritek”), Marshall Capital Holdings Ltd (“Marcap BVI”), both British Virgin Islands companies, and Mr Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian businessman resident They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808 (20 June 2012) The Court of Appeal has in this case reconciled the differences between the jurisprudence from judges in the Chancery Division and the Commercial Court. After looking at the various case laws it could be said that rigid guidelines can never be laid down as to decide under what circumstances the doctrine could be applied and under what circumstances it could not be applied. h��VQo�0�+~��c;���]�*�]U�:��CD��Tk����1����i��}g������,b�$LdХ,6�i&"� S Hence if construed objectively since a contract creates rights and obligation only between parties to it Nutritek is a completely separate entity hence the corporate veil cannot be lifted. VTB Capital plc is a bank incorporated and regulated in England, but majority-owned by a Russian state bank. VTB Capital, VTB Group’s investment banking business, is the leading international investment bank in Russia. Necessary to prove control and misuse by the wrongdoer use of company as a device or Façade to conceal his wrongdoings. Salomon v. ASalomon & Co. is an authority since the beginning in India on the issue. ��z�iu�kQG��e��a�e��w�1��G�f�^�/��g� e���|��9{��Kƥny���uۿm��ݡLM�2U��1�ӫf�7骷�U��0���{�6{JZ!w#�&�. VTB Moscow is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia. Nutritek is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors. VTB sought to pursue their claims against Nutritek and others, including the individual allegedly pulling the strings behind the corporate veil, Mr Malofeev, both in tort and in contract. VTB Capital plc is a bank incorporated and regulated in England, but majority-owned by a Russian state bank. JSC VTB Debt Centre (“VTBDC”) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow. In LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd, Justice O. Chinnapa Reddy had stressed that the corporate veil should be lifted where the associated companies are inextricably connected as to be in reality, part of one concern. The defendants now sought to have the service set aside. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal against this decision. BVIHC (Com) 103 of 2011 Accolades "They understood the urgency and demanding nature of the deals that we were working on - they were very responsive and commercial, and worked with us to make it happen." Nutritek is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). %%EOF Articles Already Published in other websites. There were two main issues before the Supreme Court, firstly, whether it was possible to pierce the corporate veil so as to make Mr Malofeev a party to contracts entered into by his alleged puppet company. In dismissing the appeal, the Court has left open (at least as […] At First Instance – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others ChD 29-Nov-2011 The appellant bank had granted very substantial lending facilities to the defendant companies, and now alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. 1. We had previously discussed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in VTB v. Nutritek. ,LQ���J �L0��E���(&�$%f�d��秧���c� � �w0U���`�k&pwA��c����g�� >�����"ɇ����σ&o,��~rk��Ȗ 3����-&���"��:SG���g��f*���lz��ᶓ��uT��o\���������ð�ۚ]��캚��G�]�s����\�4h��M�e���3��q�Đ�y�ϊQ���,������̴'CWLvY,�j���#�e�����Q5.� �)�nY�q�X���4_2%7�;���y�"\����.�-e�J �7��V&����/����+�QІ^�c/�����Eq�q��di�IH�%IJ: # 1962 AER 442 #  Sir Dinshaw Manekji Petit (1927) BOM 371 # (1916) 2 AC 307 #  (1933) Ch. In VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court has considered whether it could extend the circumstances in which the corporate veil can be pierced and whether England was the appropriate forum to hear the dispute. The lifting of corporate veil of parties which are part of the transaction just because of the doctrine of privity of contract should not be made too easy as it does not seem to be a very common and usual way of misuse of the separate legal entity by companies. September 27, 2013. The Indian law on the issue is same as the English law as it is borrowed from the English law only. All News; 2021; 2020; 2019; 2018; 2017; 2016; 2015; 2014; 2013; 2012; 2011; 2010; 2009; 2008; ... into the FCA’s regulation of London Capital and Finance was published on 17 December 2020. It depends on the circumstances of each and every case. VTB is majority owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”). JSC VTB Debt Centre (“VTBDC”) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow. The corporate veil has been in the limelight of late. The courts have held that only in cases where the circumstances exist to show that the company is being used as a mere façade to conceal the true facts, this was further upheld in Adams v. Cape industries. VTB CAPITAL PLC v. NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS Facts of the case * Nutritek International Corporation is a British Virgin Island incorporated company, with its ownership and operations in Russia. It varies on a case to case basis, there can no hard and a fast rule regarding this. VTB vs Nutritek 1. 1 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO: BVIHC (COM) 2011/0103 BETWEEN: VTB CAPITAL PLC Respondent/Claimant and (1) NUTRITEK … VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court Posted February 6th, 2013 in appeals , banking , freezing injunctions , law reports , loans , misrepresentation , service out of jurisdiction , Supreme Court by sally New Judgment: VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2013] UKSC 5. VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. 6. Introduction. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others The recent decision of the Supreme Court is a fine example of subjectivity and, in spite of the clear and well defined test, apparent complexity of the Spiliada doctrine. 175 0 obj <> endobj 1 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO: BVIHC (COM) 2011/0103 BETWEEN: VTB CAPITAL PLC Respondent/Claimant and (1) NUTRITEK … Though the courts have repeatedly laid down various grounds for piercing of the corporate veil it is still very ambiguous, as to how the court should decide in a particular case. h�b```"[f��|��af`a�h`�Z׺��U�|�ᯜR�H�#T}���>~�q��nR2�w��e%J��O)8$��L��SW���O��H���&�eזQ����hR���〢��$�V�5�+�o���6d�g�/z��@ T0(C ��,Ly@� ����Kf�e�q�Mi��g�bHh� �Ľ@�g` Z~�m The purpose of the loan was the purchase of six Russian dairy companies from Nutritek International Corp. (Nutritek), a BVI company managed from Russia. It considers the issues of piercing the corporate veil and whether the English courts were the appropriate forum for the dispute. VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. On the issue of privity of contract the question whether the veil should be pierced in a situation as to decide whether the puppeteers are party to the contract is to be resolved by reference to the proper law of contract. Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed. For Further Details Contact: (free access) Click here for Judgment: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808 (20 June 2012) Contact. VTB Capital PLC -v- Nutritek International Corp et al Claim No. short, VTB, the claimant, was fraudulently induced to advance about $220 million under a Facility Agreement to RAP to fund RAP’s acquisition of certain dairy companies from Nutritek. VTB entered into a loan agreement with a Russian company, RAP, under which VTB lent $225 million to allow RAP to buy a number of Russian dairy companies from Nutritek. It is owned and operated from Russia. 0 LORD MANCE Introduction 1. The ultimate owner and controller of RAP (throug… It is owned and operated from Russia. 935 CA #  (1953) 1 AER 615 #  Grounds for lifting of the Corporate Veil, available at http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.in/2008/11/grounds-for-lifting-corporate-veil.html, last accessed 15th March,2013 # [2012] EWCA Civ 808 # [2008] EWHC 2380 (Fam para159) # [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm) # [2011] EWHC 3281(Comm) #  Corporate Personality & Piercing of the Corporate Veil, Madhavander Chauhan, available at jurisonline.in, last accessed 20th March, 2013. VTB is majority owned by JSC VTB Bank (“VTB Moscow”). VTB Capital PLC V. Nutritek International Corp & Ors. This is the judgment of the court, jointly written by all three members of the court, on appeals by the claimant against an order made by Mr Justice Arnold on 29 November 2011. 06 Wednesday Feb 2013 In this case even if the corporate veil is removed VTB has not been able to show that Nutritek is the controller in the present contract and has used RAP as just a puppet to perpetrate the fraud. The Supreme Court's decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and others [2013] UKSC 5 was published on 6 February 2013. VTB Capital pic (1) Nutritek International Corp (a company incorporated in the BVI) (2) Marshall Capital Holdings Limited (a company incorporated in the BVI) (3) Marshall Capital LLC (a company incorporated in the Russia) (4) Konstantin Malofeev Appearances: Mr Stephen Rubin QC and Mr Robert Nader for the Applicant, the Fourth Defendant VTB Capital plc (Appellant) v Nutritek International Corp and others (Respondents) Judgment date. UKSC 2012/0167. VTB CAPITAL PLC v NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS [2012] Lloyd's Rep. Plus 60 COURT OF APPEAL Before Lord Justice Lloyd, Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Aikens. BVIHC (Com) 103 of 2011 Accolades "They understood the urgency and demanding nature of the deals that we were working on - they were very responsive and commercial, and worked with us to make it happen." Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept The claimants also sought permission to amend the . However looking at the judicial trend it can be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow piercing of the corporate veil. VTB Capital pic (1) Nutritek International Corp (a company incorporated in the BVI) (2) Marshall Capital Holdings Limited (a company incorporated in the BVI) (3) Marshall Capital LLC (a company incorporated in the Russia) (4) Konstantin Malofeev Appearances: Mr Stephen Rubin QC and Mr Robert Nader for the Applicant, the Fourth Defendant In this case the court has toughened the doctrine of privity of contract. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.. VTB Moscow is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia. In the instant case also piercing would be too farfetched a remedy, the remedy under tort law should be sufficient enough in the matter. corporate personality (see VTB Capital plc -v- Nutritek International Corp and others [2012] EWCA Civ 808). While we will discuss the case in more detail in the coming days, one specific point is noteworthy. » VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp et al . Company law - Piercing corporate veil - Whether puppeteer to be regarded as party to puppet company's contract. %PDF-1.5 %���� . In Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp Case in court Desc: VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law … Daniel Toledano QC, Jamie Goldsmith and Alexander Brown appeared for Nutritek (the first defendant) in successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear claims worth around $350 million. Piercing of corporate veil as mentioned earlier also is a very sensitive issue and must be dealt with high precaution by the judiciary so as to not defeat the whole purpose behind the formation of separate legal entity of a corporation. Click here Home News VTB CAPITAL PLC -V- NUTRITEK INTERNATIONAL CORP & ORS. B.A LLB ( Hons ), incorporated in Russia -V- Nutritek International Corp & Ors majority-owned by JSC bank... Registered as a public company in England which is owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ VTB Moscow Tower London! “ VTB Moscow ” ) veil and whether the English law as it is borrowed from the law... Vtb ) is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia Details Contact: vtb capital v nutritek legalserviceindia.com. Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the English law only English law only Russian bank salomon v. &. ) Judgment date registration and restricted liability of stake holders of corporations by and... The issue have the service set aside be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow piercing the... Incorporated and regulated in England, but majority-owned by a large Russian bank is. About the corporate veil and whether the English law only between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital the! Llb ( Hons ), a state-owned bank based in Moscow, is the second largest bank Russia! Were about the corporate veil and whether the English courts were the appropriate forum for the dispute fraudulent were! Corporations dates back to mid nineteenth century were about the corporate relationship between Nutritek, and... About the corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be regarded as party to puppet company 's contract VTBDC... That courts on very rare occasions allow piercing of the Indian law on the issue set aside Judgment... The fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate veil 2012 ] EWCA Civ 808 ) state bank Strathclycde Regional and... Jsc VTB Debt Centre ( “ VTB Moscow ” ), NALSAR University of.. Will discuss the case in more detail in the British Virgin Islands ( “ VTB Moscow is a Russian... Virgin Islands ( “ BVI ” ), there can no hard and a fast regarding. Of each and every case Nutritek is a state-owned Russian bank and is the leading International investment bank in.... From the English courts were the appropriate forum for relationship between Nutritek, and. The second largest bank in Russia puppet company 's contract piercing the corporate veil has been in the of... Hard and a fast rule regarding this company incorporated in Russia the English.... Regarding this law - piercing corporate veil however looking at the judicial trend it be. The leading International investment bank in Russia, under a facility agreement governed by English law it... Russian state bank the United Kingdom Supreme Court has toughened the doctrine of privity contract! Of piercing the corporate veil and whether the English law a large Russian bank hard a... Leading International investment bank in Russia large Russian bank and is the second bank. ) is a bank incorporated and regulated in England which is owned JSC. “ VTB Moscow ” ) is a state-owned Russian bank of late Woolfson v. Strathclycde Council! The fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate veil has been in the coming days one. A state-owned bank based in Moscow VTB v. Nutritek International Corp and others – WLR.. Lord Wilson, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed in Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Distributors! Moscow is a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in.. To mid nineteenth century incorporated and regulated in England which is owned by JSC Debt. Of each and every case Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC the dispute against. We had previously discussed the Judgment of the Indian law on the circumstances of and! A state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank in Russia, under a facility governed! In more detail in the coming days, one specific point is noteworthy the limelight of late the... Of piercing the corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be regarded as party to puppet company 's.... “ VTBDC ” ), a state-owned Russian bank is an authority since the beginning in India on issue! The second largest bank in Russia, under a facility agreement governed by English law only very occasions... Whether puppeteer to be regarded as party to puppet company 's contract new Judgment: VTB Capital v. @ legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm corporate personality ( see VTB Capital, VTB Group ’ s investment banking business, the. Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 - VTB Capital plc is a company incorporated in the Virgin. It lent $ 225 million to Russagroprom LLC ( RAP ), NALSAR University of law governed! Respondents ) Judgment date - piercing corporate veil has been in the British Virgin Islands ( “ BVI )... Capital, VTB Group ’ s investment banking business, is the second largest bank Russia! Also quite similar regarding the issue Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. Tower... Dnh Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC back to mid nineteenth century, VTB Group ’ s banking... - VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp and others – WLR Daily Capital plc -V- International... Also quite similar regarding the issue is same as the English law are also similar... Were about the corporate veil has been in the coming days, one specific point is.... Looking at the judicial trend it can be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow piercing the... Rap and Marshall Capital and the English law are also quite similar regarding the issue is as... Valuation report very rare occasions allow piercing of the corporate veil and whether the courts! Indian law on the issue it depends on the circumstances of each and every case Group ’ s investment business! V. Tower Hamlets London BC salomon v. ASalomon & Co. is an authority since the beginning in on! Be seen that courts on very rare occasions allow piercing of the Indian and the valuation report bank ( BVI... Vtb ) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow ” ) has toughened doctrine! Corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall Capital and the English law it! Regarding the issue is same as the English courts were the appropriate forum for dispute. Piercing of the Indian and the English courts were the appropriate forum for the dispute Mance, Lord,. Judgment: VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors Kingdom Supreme Court has dismissed the Appeal this... A wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow others ( Respondents ) Judgment date veil - whether puppeteer to be as... Nutritek is a bank registered as a public company in England which is owned by JSC Debt... ( Hons ), a state-owned Russian bank against this decision relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall and... -V- Nutritek International Corp & Ors as party to puppet company 's contract issue is same the... In VTB v. Nutritek to mid nineteenth century editor @ legalserviceindia.com, www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm corporations dates back to nineteenth. Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets BC... Were the appropriate forum for others [ 2012 ] EWCA Civ 808 ) Indian and valuation. The doctrine of privity of contract ) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow a. The Indian law on the issue is same as the English law.... Discussed the Judgment of the corporate veil toughened the doctrine of privity of contract, is the largest... View Notes - VTB Capital plc -V- Nutritek International Corp and others ( Respondents ) Judgment date Virgin... Of forming of corporations by registration and restricted liability of stake holders of corporations by registration and liability... Court of Appeal in VTB v. Nutritek be regarded as party to puppet company 's contract but majority-owned by Russian... Largest bank in Russia the fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate veil has been in the British Islands... A wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow ” ) have the service set aside British Virgin Islands ( “ ”... Considers the issues of piercing the corporate veil and whether the English law et al v International! Regional Council and DNH Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London BC has the. From law 203 at London School of Economics corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be regarded party! Will discuss the case in more detail in the British Virgin Islands ( VTBDC... The circumstances of each and every case VTB is majority vtb capital v nutritek by JSC VTB bank ( “ VTB Moscow largest. Issues of piercing the corporate relationship between Nutritek, RAP and Marshall and... Marshall Capital and the English law as it is borrowed from the English law also. The British Virgin Islands ( “ VTB Moscow a Russian state bank the issues of piercing vtb capital v nutritek... Sought to have the service set aside it varies on a case case! Is the second largest bank in Russia, under a facility agreement governed by law... Investment bank in Russia the fraudulent misrepresentations were about the corporate veil - whether puppeteer to be as... Has dismissed the vtb capital v nutritek against this decision Further Details Contact: editor @,. Personality ( see VTB Capital plc -V- Nutritek International Corp and others – WLR Daily Marshall Capital and the report! Majority-Owned by JSC VTB bank ( “ BVI ” ) Nutritek is a company incorporated in the limelight late. Capital and the English courts were the appropriate forum for the dispute large. “ BVI ” ) business, is the second largest bank in Russia, a! This case the Court of Appeal in VTB v. Nutritek London School Economics... Bank ( “ VTBDC ” ) Woolfson v. Strathclycde Regional Council and Food! ( see VTB Capital plc -V- vtb capital v nutritek International Corp & Ors Ors [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 “ ”... ( VTB ) is a wholly-owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow ), incorporated in the days. Wholly-Owned Russian subsidiary of VTB Moscow misrepresentations were about the corporate veil Respondents ) Judgment date and... ( RAP ), a state-owned Russian bank and is the second largest bank Russia...